Human Rights and the Courts

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F44555601%3A13410%2F20%3A43895469" target="_blank" >RIV/44555601:13410/20:43895469 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://www.lexlata.pro/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CYIL-2020-Abstracts.pdf" target="_blank" >https://www.lexlata.pro/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/CYIL-2020-Abstracts.pdf</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Human Rights and the Courts

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

This article concerns itself with the origins, categorisation and stages of human rights. It explains the modern traditioin of separating natural rights into claims without any connection to responsibility. The current expansion of human rights is one of the consequences of this. Another cause is identified as legal positivism, optimistic view on the ability of mankind to comprehend human rights. In contrast to that is the sceptical view which considers a very limited circle of rights to constitute natural human rights and does not assume that mankind could achieve any new understanding in this regard. Courts are becoming the arbiters in matters of human rights in countries where the law guarantees human rights and freedoms. The role of the courts when optimising their realisation and setting the boundaries during the collision of two or more requirements is essential. Judicature is an increasingly powerfull tool for both protection and searching for specific contents and development. Even though courts have drawn up decision-making methods, which include e.g.: the use of proportionality and rationality tests, the fact that extra-legal factors may play a role during the decision-making process cannot be ruled out. Outcome of this is favorising some rights over others. Protection of individual rights is placed above wider interests such as safety, order and fight against crime. This often occurs in the name of the right to a fair trial, whereby this requirement is absolutised, which precludes the trial from achieving a fair result. The courts have therefore become the real overlords in the area of human rights, as they have a wide scope for finding their own interpretations. This is especially apparent during the interpretation of the constitution, which is usually rigid, i.e. Virtually politically immutable, while it is open to judicial interpretation, which means it finds itself in the hands of the courts. Constitutional judiciary limits political discourse, while the other powers usually do not have the strenght to actively resist this trend, not even when courts fail to protect citizens against serious threats. One of the reactions of this is the populistic rejection of the very concept of the constitutional judiciary. The opposite reaction is an idealised view of the constitutional judiciary as a mere interpreter of the constitution.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Human Rights and the Courts

Popis výsledku anglicky

This article concerns itself with the origins, categorisation and stages of human rights. It explains the modern traditioin of separating natural rights into claims without any connection to responsibility. The current expansion of human rights is one of the consequences of this. Another cause is identified as legal positivism, optimistic view on the ability of mankind to comprehend human rights. In contrast to that is the sceptical view which considers a very limited circle of rights to constitute natural human rights and does not assume that mankind could achieve any new understanding in this regard. Courts are becoming the arbiters in matters of human rights in countries where the law guarantees human rights and freedoms. The role of the courts when optimising their realisation and setting the boundaries during the collision of two or more requirements is essential. Judicature is an increasingly powerfull tool for both protection and searching for specific contents and development. Even though courts have drawn up decision-making methods, which include e.g.: the use of proportionality and rationality tests, the fact that extra-legal factors may play a role during the decision-making process cannot be ruled out. Outcome of this is favorising some rights over others. Protection of individual rights is placed above wider interests such as safety, order and fight against crime. This often occurs in the name of the right to a fair trial, whereby this requirement is absolutised, which precludes the trial from achieving a fair result. The courts have therefore become the real overlords in the area of human rights, as they have a wide scope for finding their own interpretations. This is especially apparent during the interpretation of the constitution, which is usually rigid, i.e. Virtually politically immutable, while it is open to judicial interpretation, which means it finds itself in the hands of the courts. Constitutional judiciary limits political discourse, while the other powers usually do not have the strenght to actively resist this trend, not even when courts fail to protect citizens against serious threats. One of the reactions of this is the populistic rejection of the very concept of the constitutional judiciary. The opposite reaction is an idealised view of the constitutional judiciary as a mere interpreter of the constitution.

Druh

J_ost - Ostatní články v recenzovaných periodicích

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

50501 - Law

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Název periodika

Czech Yearbook of International Law

ISSN

2157-2976

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

11

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

2020

Stát vydavatele periodika

NL - Nizozemsko

Počet stran výsledku

32

Strana od-do

85-116

Kód UT WoS článku

—

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—